Vikings 2024 Season

[gunnarthor]

Looks like we also get the Jags 2026 7th rounder. Seems like a good trade.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I think that 7 games is more than 40% of the season, which is in no way a small sample—it’s equivalent to almost 70 games in an MLB season.

if he’s so good that he can turn Dobbs and Mullens into the 10th best offense by yards, what does it say about Darnold that they’re now 19th?  Is Darnold that much worse, and if so, shouldn’t we turn to Mullens since he’s still on the roster?

im not criticizing KOC per se.  I’m saying sometimes it feels like posters on this board just assume he’s a great offensive mind because he came from LA.  I’m saying to this point he hasn’t really done anything to make me think he’s in the McVay, Shanahan, Reid tier, or anywhere close to that.  He’s not bottom 10, but I don’t think he’s top 10 either, and non-top 10 offensive minds aren’t going to win a Super Bowl without a dominant defense.

Top 10 scoring team.  As Mike rightly pointed out.  You are deliberately narrowing the context.

[Vanimal46]

Realistically the Vikings weren't going to get a good LT halfway through the season. Cam Robinson might be okay. There's probably a reason why we has benched last week and now traded away for less than the potential comp pick they could have received. At least they're trying,,, 

[Cap'n Piranha]

14 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Top 10 scoring team.  As Mike rightly pointed out.  You are deliberately narrowing the context.

Part of that is thanks to defensive TDs (in which the Vikings lead the league--over 10% of the Vikings points have come from defensive TDs); strip that out, and the Vikings are tied for 8th, but only .1 PPG ahead of 10th, and only .6 ahead of 12th.

You are correct that I am deliberately narrowing the context--I'm calling attention to a very worrying trend over the past 3+ games, games where the Vikings are pretty fortunate to be 2-2; they could easily be 0-4.

• Green Bay--The Packers had 4 TOs, 8 penalties, and missed 2 FGs, and we still only won by 2 points, because we were outscored 22-3 in the second half
• Jets--The Jets had 3 TOs and 8 penalties--we only won by 6 points thanks to a game-clinching INT as the Jets were driving to tie/take the lead.
• Detroit--Honestly played pretty well here, but we were coming off a bye, Detroit was not, and we were at home.
• Rams--The Rams thoroughly beat us; 9 more first downs, 110 more yards of offense, we had 0 sacks on them (and almost no pressure), 7 more minutes TOP.

In the last 14 quarters, the Vikings have been outscored 100-75, scoring only 7 TDs (only 5 on offense) while giving up 13; over a season that equates to 485-364, which would have been 6th worst in the NFL in 2023.  Take out the two defensive TDs, and that changes to 100-62 which is 485-301; that's a worse point differential than the 2023 Carolina Panthers.

Time will tell if the Kwesi/KOC bobos are right--they very well might be.  But to pretend that this team has not been mostly bad since halftime of the GB game is deliberately ignoring reality.

[Cap'n Piranha]

14 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Realistically the Vikings weren't going to get a good LT halfway through the season. Cam Robinson might be okay. There's probably a reason why we has benched last week and now traded away for less than the potential comp pick they could have received. At least they're trying,,, 

My boss is a Jaguars fan--for what it's worth, he says Robinson is ok, but not as good as he was a couple years ago.  I assume the benching has something to do with a desire to trade him (which they can't do if he gets injured).  If not, I don't think we should be super excited about the odds of a guy benched by a 2-6 team being our OL savior.

[TheLeviathan]

53 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Part of that is thanks to defensive TDs (in which the Vikings lead the league--over 10% of the Vikings points have come from defensive TDs); strip that out, and the Vikings are tied for 8th, but only .1 PPG ahead of 10th, and only .6 ahead of 12th.

You are correct that I am deliberately narrowing the context--I'm calling attention to a very worrying trend over the past 3+ games, games where the Vikings are pretty fortunate to be 2-2; they could easily be 0-4.

• Green Bay--The Packers had 4 TOs, 8 penalties, and missed 2 FGs, and we still only won by 2 points, because we were outscored 22-3 in the second half
• Jets--The Jets had 3 TOs and 8 penalties--we only won by 6 points thanks to a game-clinching INT as the Jets were driving to tie/take the lead.
• Detroit--Honestly played pretty well here, but we were coming off a bye, Detroit was not, and we were at home.
• Rams--The Rams thoroughly beat us; 9 more first downs, 110 more yards of offense, we had 0 sacks on them (and almost no pressure), 7 more minutes TOP.

In the last 14 quarters, the Vikings have been outscored 100-75, scoring only 7 TDs (only 5 on offense) while giving up 13; over a season that equates to 485-364, which would have been 6th worst in the NFL in 2023.  Take out the two defensive TDs, and that changes to 100-62 which is 485-301; that's a worse point differential than the 2023 Carolina Panthers.

Time will tell if the Kwesi/KOC bobos are right--they very well might be.  But to pretend that this team has not been mostly bad since halftime of the GB game is deliberately ignoring reality.

I mean...even with the effort to take out defensive TDs they are still top 10.  Yes, they had a bad second half against GB.  (But...I'll point out, when the offensive NEEDED to score.  They did)  The Jets are a good defensive team and they played in London.  I thought they played fine.  We had a good first half against the Rams.

Yeah, we've had three bad stretches (first half of Det, second halves of LA and GB).  In 7 games, why is that time to worry?  Something to improve, sure.  Good coaches go through stretches like that all the time!

Tell me....who IS a great coach in the NFL in your opinion?  And brace yourself, I guarantee you I can point to some seriously problematic stretches for them too.

[Parfigliano]

2 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

My boss is a Jaguars fan--for what it's worth, he says Robinson is ok, but not as good as he was a couple years ago.  I assume the benching has something to do with a desire to trade him (which they can't do if he gets injured).  If not, I don't think we should be super excited about the odds of a guy benched by a 2-6 team being our OL savior.

Savior no.  Better then Queensbury.  Has to be.

[nicksaviking]

18 minutes ago, Parfigliano said:

Savior no.  Better then Queensbury.  Has to be.

I would venture to say that anyone who has started even a single game at LT this season is a better option than Quesenberry.

[Mike Sixel]

The Jag's are paying like 70 percent of the new OTs salary. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

3 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

I mean...even with the effort to take out defensive TDs they are still top 10.  Yes, they had a bad second half against GB.  (But...I'll point out, when the offensive NEEDED to score.  They did)  The Jets are a good defensive team and they played in London.  I thought they played fine.  We had a good first half against the Rams.

Yeah, we've had three bad stretches (first half of Det, second halves of LA and GB).  In 7 games, why is that time to worry?  Something to improve, sure.  Good coaches go through stretches like that all the time!

Tell me....who IS a great coach in the NFL in your opinion?  And brace yourself, I guarantee you I can point to some seriously problematic stretches for them too.

Barely top 10, pretty close to not top 10.  After their last score against GB, they were bailed out by the Packers turning the ball over not once, but twice.  They had a 2nd and 5 at the GB 8, ran 3 plays, and couldn't pick up those 5 yards to end the game.

As pertains the Jets game, you're right, it was very unfair the Vikings had to play in London, and the Jets didn't.  Further, the Jets are not a top 10 defense in PPG, and the offense scored 16 points on them.  Only the Patriots (in one game, but not the other) and the Broncos scored fewer; even Will Levis and the Titans put up more offensive points on the Jets.

We did not have a good first half against the Rams, we had two good drives.  After that we had 3 possessions (one was at the end of the half); we ran 8 plays for -4 yards, two punts and the aforementioned end of half.

This team has struggled for at least as much of the season as it has succeeded, and KOC does not have the track record that makes me willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  The best coaches in the league, in my opinion right now, are Reid, Campbell, Tomlin, Lafleur, and Harbaugh.  I'd also put McVay and Shanahan on that list, and yes, those guys are struggling right now, but McVay has won a superbowl, and Shanahan has been to two.  That gives them the benefit of the doubt, that KOC has not earned.

To wit, in Zimmer's last 3 seasons, the Vikings were 7th, 9th, and 12th in Offensive PPG.  With KOC, they are 8th, 22nd, and 8th.  Looks an awful lot to me like KOC has done little, if anything, to improve a Vikings offense that wasn't exactly considered great.

I hope I'm wrong.  I hope the Vikings finish 15-2, average 35 PPG the rest of way, and secure the 1 seed on their way to their first ever Superbowl title.  I just see a number of red flags starting to pop up in the last 3.5 games that have me concerned, especially because, as I mentioned, it would not have been that unlikely for the Packers to complete the comeback, or for the Jets to score a TD when they had 1st and 10 at our 26 with a minute left in the game.  We have a 3 week stretch to get right, and get to 8-2, but if we end up at 7-3 or even 6-4, our last 7 games is pretty challenging, especially the last 4.

The last 4 is Bears at home on a Monday, then a short week before at Seattle, followed by GB at home, and Lions on the road.  That seems tougher to me than any other 4 game stretch this season.  While statistically speaking 0-4 is unlikely, it's certainly not impossible, and 1-3 is still  a distinct possibility, which means the Vikings would be well advised to get to 9 wins at a minimum in the next 6 games.

[Cap'n Piranha]

16 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

The Jag's are paying like 70 percent of the new OTs salary. 

Why in the world did Jacksonville trade him?  There is something more going on with all this.  No way you give up a useful player, even a pending FA, AND pay 70% of the salary, all for a 4th/5th rounder 18 months from now.  They must think there's zero chance he gets $50M in FA (the threshold for a 3rd round comp pick).

[Vanimal46]

4 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Why in the world did Jacksonville trade him?  There is something more going on with all this.  No way you give up a useful player, even a pending FA, AND pay 70% of the salary, all for a 4th/5th rounder 18 months from now.  They must think there's zero chance he gets $50M in FA (the threshold for a 3rd round comp pick).

As I posted before, there's a reason why he was benched last week and traded for less than the projected comp pick. I hope he's good but my bar for him right now is Riley Reiff. 

[Danchat]

5 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Why in the world did Jacksonville trade him?  There is something more going on with all this.  No way you give up a useful player, even a pending FA, AND pay 70% of the salary, all for a 4th/5th rounder 18 months from now.  They must think there's zero chance he gets $50M in FA (the threshold for a 3rd round comp pick).

He's getting maybe $10/12M a year in free agency, not getting $50M. He's a passable left tackle, but he didn't live up to the deal Jacksonville paid him and they knew they had no interest in bringing him back for a reason. Might have to settle for a one year deal.

[TheLeviathan]

5 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Barely top 10, pretty close to not top 10.  After their last score against GB, they were bailed out by the Packers turning the ball over not once, but twice.  They had a 2nd and 5 at the GB 8, ran 3 plays, and couldn't pick up those 5 yards to end the game.

As pertains the Jets game, you're right, it was very unfair the Vikings had to play in London, and the Jets didn't.  Further, the Jets are not a top 10 defense in PPG, and the offense scored 16 points on them.  Only the Patriots (in one game, but not the other) and the Broncos scored fewer; even Will Levis and the Titans put up more offensive points on the Jets.

We did not have a good first half against the Rams, we had two good drives.  After that we had 3 possessions (one was at the end of the half); we ran 8 plays for -4 yards, two punts and the aforementioned end of half.

This team has struggled for at least as much of the season as it has succeeded, and KOC does not have the track record that makes me willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  The best coaches in the league, in my opinion right now, are Reid, Campbell, Tomlin, Lafleur, and Harbaugh.  I'd also put McVay and Shanahan on that list, and yes, those guys are struggling right now, but McVay has won a superbowl, and Shanahan has been to two.  That gives them the benefit of the doubt, that KOC has not earned.

To wit, in Zimmer's last 3 seasons, the Vikings were 7th, 9th, and 12th in Offensive PPG.  With KOC, they are 8th, 22nd, and 8th.  Looks an awful lot to me like KOC has done little, if anything, to improve a Vikings offense that wasn't exactly considered great.

I hope I'm wrong.  I hope the Vikings finish 15-2, average 35 PPG the rest of way, and secure the 1 seed on their way to their first ever Superbowl title.  I just see a number of red flags starting to pop up in the last 3.5 games that have me concerned, especially because, as I mentioned, it would not have been that unlikely for the Packers to complete the comeback, or for the Jets to score a TD when they had 1st and 10 at our 26 with a minute left in the game.  We have a 3 week stretch to get right, and get to 8-2, but if we end up at 7-3 or even 6-4, our last 7 games is pretty challenging, especially the last 4.

The last 4 is Bears at home on a Monday, then a short week before at Seattle, followed by GB at home, and Lions on the road.  That seems tougher to me than any other 4 game stretch this season.  While statistically speaking 0-4 is unlikely, it's certainly not impossible, and 1-3 is still  a distinct possibility, which means the Vikings would be well advised to get to 9 wins at a minimum in the next 6 games.

The mental gymnastics in this post would make a Russian ballerina blush.

London games are frequently sloppy and erratic, not just for the Vikings but for all teams.  The point was that most teams that go to London dont play a representative game, win or lose. Let's do the rest rapid fire:

Andy Reid's vaunted offensive genius has looked hideous for a long time now.  Like....Patrick Mahomes dropped in fantasy leagues bad.

Tomlin's teams have made the 1970s look like passing juggernauts.

Harbaugh's team lost to a backup QB this week.  Lafluer's teams haven't won squat and had some of the most ridiculous postseason chokes of recent memory.  McVay's Rams have 15 total wins the last two years.  5 less than KOC despite half their schedule being against a garbage ass division.

See how the cherry picking game works?  Those are all good coaches.  All with imperfect performances that one could contort themselves into attacking if they saw fit.  You're trying too hard man.  Like...WAY too hard.

[nicksaviking]

15 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

To wit, in Zimmer's last 3 seasons, the Vikings were 7th, 9th, and 12th in Offensive PPG.  With KOC, they are 8th, 22nd, and 8th.  Looks an awful lot to me like KOC has done little, if anything, to improve a Vikings offense that wasn't exactly considered great.

 

I mean if you're going to refuse to correlate the offensive production to the starting QBs the team had during those years, I don't know that there's much more to discuss here. There wasn't a person on this planet who thought Darnold was an upgrade to Cousins in his prime, which was why McCarthy was drafted. Arguing that Darnold was expected to be an improvement seems irrational.

[Cap'n Piranha]

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

The mental gymnastics in this post would make a Russian ballerina blush.

London games are frequently sloppy and erratic, not just for the Vikings but for all teams.  The point was that most teams that go to London dont play a representative game, win or lose. Let's do the rest rapid fire:

Andy Reid's vaunted offensive genius has looked hideous for a long time now.  Like....Patrick Mahomes dropped in fantasy leagues bad.

Tomlin's teams have made the 1970s look like passing juggernauts.

Harbaugh's team lost to a backup QB this week.  Lafluer's teams haven't won squat and had some of the most ridiculous postseason chokes of recent memory.  McVay's Rams have 15 total wins the last two years.  5 less than KOC despite half their schedule being against a garbage ass division.

See how the cherry picking game works?  Those are all good coaches.  All with imperfect performances that one could contort themselves into attacking if they saw fit.  You're trying too hard man.  Like...WAY too hard.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge potential red flags would make an ostrich call you obstinate.

Yes, London games can be sloppy and erratic--so wouldn't that also apply to the Jets?  And yet, the supposed top 10 Vikings offense playing against an overrated Jets defense, which must have been sloppy and erratic to boot, only scored 16 points, and only 1 TD.  You can't give the Vikings a mulligan for the game being in London, and refuse to consider the impact on the opponent as well.

The Kansas City Chiefs this year are averaging 24 offensive PPG, which is identical to the Vikings.  Literally identical.  Last year they were 11th to the Vikings 22nd, in 2022 they were 2nd to the Vikings 8th.  So if an offense that is demonstrably and clearly better at scoring points (the metric YOU want to use to gauge offensive performance) is "hideous," what does that say about KOC's offense?

Tomlin has never had a losing season and has won a superbowl; things KOC cannot say.  You asked for best coaches, not best offensive minds.

Harbaugh's offense is 2nd in offensive PPG this year and 4th last year.  He has a career .618 winning percentage (better than KOC's .610), and has won a superbowl.  He has only 2 losing seasons out of 16 completed seasons.

Lafleur has a career .681 winning percentage, and has never won fewer than 8 games.  If you want to ding him for playoff chokes, certainly you have to downgrade KOC for his 2022 team absolutely no-showing against the Giants, no?

McVay also has a superbowl win on his resume.  As for the division, are you aware that in 2023 the NFC West had the exact same number of wins (35) as the NFC North, and included the eventual Super Bowl runner-up?  In 2022 the NFC West had exactly 2 fewer wins than the North (31 to 33).  If you exclude the Vikings and Rams from those numbers, the North has been at 28 and 20, compared to 25 and 26.  In other words, the Rams divisional opponents have won more games in the past 2 seasons than the Vikings divisional opponents.  If the NFC West has been garbage for the past 2 years, what does it say about the North, which has been worse?

I do see how the cherry picking game works for you--not well.  Several of your examples actually prove the opposite of what you think they do.  I don't know why it's so hard for you to simply say "yeah, for literally half the season the Vikings offense has been performing like literally a borderline bottom 5 offense by PPG.  If that doesn't get fixed, we're in real trouble".  You're trying way too hard to ignore reality friend.

[Cap'n Piranha]

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

I mean if you're going to refuse to correlate the offensive production to the starting QBs the team had during those years, I don't know that there's much more to discuss here. There wasn't a person on this planet who thought Darnold was an upgrade to Cousins in his prime, which was why McCarthy was drafted. Arguing that Darnold was expected to be an improvement seems irrational.

I'm not refusing to correlate, I'm saying if KOC is some offensive genius, why was the offense not appreciably better when he took over?  If he can't make the offense work without a good starting QB, why did they push Kirk out the door without having a replacement ready to go?  There was no guarantee we would get a QB in the draft (NYG could easily have gone McCarthy at 6, and if they do, what if the Broncos go up to 7 to get Nix, and ATL still takes Penix), so it seems a lot to me like the Vikings deliberately decided to dramatically increase their odds of having a bad offense.  Even if McCarthy doesn;t get hurt, does anyone on this board think rookie McCarthy is better than prime Cousins?

I'm not arguing Darnold should have been an improvement.  I'm arguing that the Vikings offense is showing real signs of being below average (18th in offensive PPG across the last 3 games), and if KOC is not able to coax quality production out of QBs who are not Pro Bowl caliber or better, than I'm not going to pretend like he's some offensive guru.

I think KOC is probably a great offensive strategist; when giving a few days to specifically plan for an opponent, he can put together a great plan (the Vikings are averaging over 10 points in the 1st quarter, easily tops in the NFL).  But I think he's probably a terrible offensive tactician; once he has to respond to in-game adjustments, he struggles (25th in 2nd Q points, 12th in 3rd Q--when he has halftime to take a breath--, and 19th in 4th Q).

This sums up my whole point about KOC--my perception of him is that he is a decent offensive mind, but not good, and certainly not great.  None of that is to say he can't improve, and prove me wrong.  I really hope he does.  But right now I am growing increasingly concerned that this season will be wasted, next year will be no better, and we'll be starting all over again with a new GM and coach in 2026, when we could just do it now.

[nicksaviking]

17 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

The Kansas City Chiefs 

Tomlin 

Harbaugh's 

Lafleur 

McVay 

 

So four coaches who've found success with HOF QBs in Mahomes, Jackson, Rodgers and Stafford, and Mike Tomlin who is a HOF coach but who Vikings fans would have wanted out of here a decade ago due to his club's inability to get out of the first round of the playoffs BECAUSE they don't fix the QB situation.

Why do you continue to duck the obvious correlation between the caliber of QB on the team and the offensive success?

[nicksaviking]

4 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

 

I'm not arguing Darnold should have been an improvement.  I'm arguing that the Vikings offense is showing real signs of being below average (18th in offensive PPG across the last 3 games), and if KOC is not able to coax quality production out of QBs who are not Pro Bowl caliber or better, than I'm not going to pretend like he's some offensive guru.

 

Yes, you are. That is your entire argument. He has gotten Sam Darnold to run the offense up to Kirk Cousins level of play in what EVERYONE said should have been a step back offensively and a rebuild year, yet you won't stop complaining about it.

[Mike Sixel]

12 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Yes, you are. That is your entire argument. He has gotten Sam Darnold to run the offense up to Kirk Cousins level of play in what EVERYONE said should have been a step back offensively and a rebuild year, yet you won't stop complaining about it.

Without a real RG, and now an at best average LT (they have one above average OL, and likely 4 below average now)....

[nicksaviking]

2 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Without a real RG, and now an at best average LT (they have one above average OL, and likely 4 below average now)....

Right, this team can't run up the middle and the other teams know it. Makes it that much harder to run to the outside and frees up the LBs to focus on taking away underneath passes and play more DBs to double team the receivers.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

So four coaches who've found success with HOF QBs in Mahomes, Jackson, Rodgers and Stafford, and Mike Tomlin who is a HOF coach but who Vikings fans would have wanted out of here a decade ago due to his club's inability to get out of the first round of the playoffs BECAUSE they don't fix the QB situation.

Why do you continue to duck the obvious correlation between the caliber of QB on the team and the offensive success?

And I suppose none of that offensive success has anything at all to do with the coach?  Mahomes would be exactly the same player had the Giants drafted him?  How many playoff games did Stafford win with Detroit, and was he ever considered a HOF QB?  Does Jackson win multiple MVPs playing just down the road in Washington?  If Lafleur’s success is because of Rodgers, why is the Packers offense scoring more points in Love’s first two seasons (even with Malik Willis getting some starts) than in Rodger’s last two?

You think Minnesota fans would want to fire a coach who had never had a losing season, won a Super Bowl, and made another?

Of course teams with better QBs have better offensive success.  Why do you continue to refuse to acknowledge that good coaching plays a vital role in making a QB better?

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

Yes, you are. That is your entire argument. He has gotten Sam Darnold to run the offense up to Kirk Cousins level of play in what EVERYONE said should have been a step back offensively and a rebuild year, yet you won't stop complaining about it.

Again, I'm talking about the last 14 quarters.  Not the whole year.  The offense has been putrid for literally half the season to this point.  5 TDs in 14 quarters, which is easily a bottom 5 pace this year.  I'm not ignoring what happened in the first 14 quarters, I'm saying there is a disturbing trend emerging, and I don't trust KOC to fix it--that's not the same as saying he can't, won't, or I don't hope he does.  KOC has yet to demonstrate, in my opinion, an ability to construct a consistently performing offense.

[TheLeviathan]

6 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I do see how the cherry picking game works for you--not well.  Several of your examples actually prove the opposite of what you think they do.  I don't know why it's so hard for you to simply say "yeah, for literally half the season the Vikings offense has been performing like literally a borderline bottom 5 offense by PPG.  If that doesn't get fixed, we're in real trouble".  You're trying way too hard to ignore reality friend.

Actually, I acknowledged KOC has flaws and said I've criticized him myself.  What you want everyone to do is accept your broad, hyperbolic conclusions are validly drawn from your cherry picked, overstated anecdotes.

Your arguments actually prove MY point.  Of course my examples don't support broad conclusions - that was the point!  I used your argument to draw the same kind of sweeping conclusions and you (with a stunning display of lack of self-awareness) fell right into it.  You keep thinking that your tactic here is something worth a back and forth.  It isn't.  You're wrong for the same reason my purposefully narrow attacks on those coaches was wrong.

So....no, I'm not going to agree with this paragraph.  It hasn't been "literally half the season".  You keep trying to make that argument despite the fact, to use your favorite word, it quite literally isn't true.  It'd be one thing if you said "Man guys...I'm a little concerned that our offense has had some stretches where it really struggles.  Is that a red flag for the future"  Yeah, that's a concern with valid arguments behind it.

"I dont think KOC is very good and it's becuse the Vikings have sucked for literally half the time since the Big Bang and KOC literally can't spell football!" is an argument I'll just pass on partaking with, thank you very much.

[TheLeviathan]

Just for the record - Vikings are 7th in scoring on the season.  16th over the last 3 games.  And over the last 14 quarters are averaging about 21.5 points per game.  That would place them about 20-22nd if they continued it.

Which is 4-5 points higher than bottom 5.  So, quite literally, nowhere close to being "easily bottom five".

[Cap'n Piranha]

2 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Actually, I acknowledged KOC has flaws and said I've criticized him myself.  What you want everyone to do is accept your broad, hyperbolic conclusions are validly drawn from your cherry picked, overstated anecdotes.

Your arguments actually prove MY point.  Of course my examples don't support broad conclusions - that was the point!  I used your argument to draw the same kind of sweeping conclusions and you (with a stunning display of lack of self-awareness) fell right into it.  You keep thinking that your tactic here is something worth a back and forth.  It isn't.  You're wrong for the same reason my purposefully narrow attacks on those coaches was wrong.

So....no, I'm not going to agree with this paragraph.  It hasn't been "literally half the season".  You keep trying to make that argument despite the fact, to use your favorite word, it quite literally isn't true.  It'd be one thing if you said "Man guys...I'm a little concerned that our offense has had some stretches where it really struggles.  Is that a red flag for the future"  Yeah, that's a concern with valid arguments behind it.

"I dont think KOC is very good and it's becuse the Vikings have sucked for literally half the time since the Big Bang and KOC literally can't spell football!" is an argument I'll just pass on partaking with, thank you very much.

Dude, just having a debate here.  If someone having a different opinion than you is so triggering, perhaps it's time to retire your TD account.  You seem rather confused, since you're referring to my conclusions as broad and hyperbolic; they're nothing of the sort.  Let me break it down for you in simple terms, since you seem not to be grasping it;

The Vikings have played 7 games, 14 halves, 28 quarters; for the last 3.5/7/14, they have been dramatically outscored, and the offense in particular has struggled mightily to score TDs.  I hope KOC can fix it, but he does not yet have the track record that other coaches I named have; accordingly, I am not giving him the benefit of the doubt that he will figure it out.

Your idea that your arguments were a trap is ridiculous.  You're claiming that some coaches have struggled, while picking examples that cannot be called struggles at all.  At no time in KOC's tenure has KC had a worse offense than the Vikings, but you're claiming they're hideous.  That's not some clever trap, that's you being either too lazy, or too confused by the stats to realize your example of KC struggling is literal nonsense.  You claim the Rams play in a terrible division, without bothering to discover the division they play in is better than the Vikings'.  If you wanted to cherry pick stats to show that you can prove any point you want, you should have at least picked stats that supported your claim, not invalidated it.  Nor were my stats cherry-picked; they're literally the most recent data possible.  It's like saying the Twins were a playoff caliber team in 2024, because using the last 40 games to say otherwise is cherry picking.

The offensive struggles, which began at half time of the GB game, have gone on for half the season.  That's 7 halves, which is exactly half the halves the Vikings have played this year.  If simple division is beyond you, than I really don't know what to say.  Your proposal for what I should have stated is pretty much an exact summation of what I'm saying.  That you can't see that is fascinating to me.

Your last paragraph is just ridiculous, as it's not in the same Universe as what I'm saying.  I've said multiple times I think KOC is ok--not good, but not bad.  I've been very clear about the timeframe I'm talking about.  If your asinine attempt at a paraphrase is honestly what you think I've been saying, then your skills of comprehension are wretched indeed.

[Cap'n Piranha]

3 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Just for the record - Vikings are 7th in scoring on the season.  16th over the last 3 games.  And over the last 14 quarters are averaging about 21.5 points per game.  That would place them about 20-22nd if they continued it.

Which is 4-5 points higher than bottom 5.  So, quite literally, nowhere close to being "easily bottom five".

Strip out the defensive scores, re-jigger your slide rule, and get back to me with what the numbers look like then.  You're also conveniently leaving out the second half of the GB game (cherry-picking much?)--since that's the exact time period I've used throughout this thread, why not adjust for that, and see where you land?

[TheLeviathan]

8 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Strip out the defensive scores, re-jigger your slide rule, and get back to me with what the numbers look like then.  You're also conveniently leaving out the second half of the GB game (cherry-picking much?)--since that's the exact time period I've used throughout this thread, why not adjust for that, and see where you land?

Unlike you, I didn't cherry pick anything.  I simply added up their total points over the course of the last 14 quarters.  3 against GB, 23 against the Jets, 29 against the Lions, and 20 against the rams.  That's a total of 75 points.  Take those 75 points and divide by 14 quarters and it comes out to 5.35 points per quarter.  If they maintained that pace they'd be averaging 21.4 points per game.  Which is decidely above the bottom of the league.  Which is exactly what I said.

I'm sorry you literally didn't do the math for your position.  I did.  At this point, to be "easily bottom five in the league" they'd have to be sub 17 points per game.  No method of calculation will arrive at a number to support that conclusion.

What I just did was demonstrate exactly what multiple people are trying to tell you: you aren't making a good argument.  You're using half-baked calculations, broad generalizations, and cherry picked statistics to arrive at the conclusion you want rather than using the numbers to guide a conclusion.  You're not doing analysis, you're stumping.

You took what could have been a sustainable, reasonable point and dressed it in hyperbole and falsehoods to the point that it should be called out for what it is.  Schlock.

[gunnarthor]

6 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Strip out the defensive scores, re-jigger your slide rule, and get back to me with what the numbers look like then.  You're also conveniently leaving out the second half of the GB game (cherry-picking much?)--since that's the exact time period I've used throughout this thread, why not adjust for that, and see where you land?

Dude, just stop. You pouted all through the Vikings pre-season thread, basically disappeared when they went 5-0, and now you're doing your chicken little thing again after they lost 2 games by 12 points.

[Mike Sixel]

The Rams are likely benching Ncua (sp?) this week.......Vikings likely win that game if he doesn't get his one week in against them. Sigh.